[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

Sun Jun 21 18:13:28 CEST 2009

Michel,

I agree with much of what you say, but I increasingly think the linkage to
conventional Neo-Marxism may prove the undoing of P2P theory.

What I see developing amongst the Neo-Marxists is not an inclusive theory.
It is a controlling theory. It must, like a religion, be the only way.  It
mandates and demands while being inherently judgmental.  They KNOW what
equality is.  They KNOW what persecution is.  And they KNOW how to solve
these problems.  It is, like so many 19th century ideals, judgment mixed
with intolerance.

I would hope pluralism could and would reign, but I fear that there are
those who think their ideas are the only ones, and who demand that full
accession to their ideals is a form of perfection.  That is dangerous.

Ryan

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> There would be a lot to say about your characterisations, but if we're not
> to picky I think it's not difficult to agree with the 3 anti-modernist
> strands you are describing, a leftist one, a traditional one, and a
> technocratic one.
>
> But to my mind, though contemporary p2p sympathisers may have links to one
> or another, many have not, and I don't see myself fitting into any of them,
> and I suspect most on this list would deny such a direct linkage as such.
>
> I see the reality much differently, p2p reflects new human possiblities of
> organizing, some of it the reviving of old ways for sure, and a revolution
> in the structure of desire, what you call the 'p2p ethos'. I see this as a
> historic opportunity for new steps towards a more inclusive human society
> and more emancipation (freedom, equality, justice ...).
>
> For sure, people with linkages to the strands you describe will try to make
> sense of the new within the frameworks they grew up with, and that is
> inevitable.
>
> So what is the difference? Instead of picking and choosing and creating new
> ideologies, why not create platforms for dialogue, however difficult, where
> people with or without affiliation with such strands can actually talk
> together.
>
> Where can a free-market-fundamentalist like Kevin Carson, a self-described
> neoliberal such as yourself, distributist christians, and an assortment of
> more traditional lefties talk together?
>
> I believe in the possiblity of integration, in which people can make
> efforts to recognize truth in the others ...
>
> It is not easy ...  I find it difficult to accept your pro-nuclear stance,
> others with the ones on GMO, and many people can find fault in particular
> points brought by other, including with my own points of view  ... none of
> us makes the grade, totally, for each other in terms of similarity of views
> ... we take a deep breath, and we continue our efforts to talk and learn
> from each other beyond such differences ...
>
> It seems that on this list and forums, for the last 3 months have seen an
> increase in level of a focus on differences ... this is not always
> comfortable, but beyond anyone's control I think ...
>
> but there are enough commonolaties in favour of p2p solutions to keep going
> at it ...
>
> this is why I continue, despite everything, to continue building the
> resource base ...
>
> I figure that, even if I'm totally wrong in my own interpretations of p2p,
> the materials I collected, from various and opposing quarters, will be
> useful anyway, even if used in different frameworks,
>
> As my recent project on neotraditional economics indicates, I think
> dialogue with many different quarters remains fruitful,
>
> Michel
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> What follows is a crude sketch forming in my own mind:
>>
>> There were three great historical threads of anti-materialism in
>> the Anglo-American sphere that all reached their peak in the 1930s.
>>
>> The first was the conventional Utopian socialist model.  This one still
>> plays out today (often in this list) and suggests a higher moral ground for
>> certain enlightened parties who can see clearly the ills that affect
>> society.  These groups tend to form communes, tend to collapse when sects
>> become unworkable, and tend to have radical ideas for doing away with money,
>> creating leisure societies, etc.  Their futurist component is the group that
>> hopes Star Trek replicators become reality.  There is a high quantity of
>> self-proclaimed intellectuals in this group often made up of disaffected
>> rebels who fair poorly in conventional schools and degree programs.  Their
>> past patron saint is George Bernard Shaw.  It seems to me the world center
>> of this movement now is German-speaking.
>>
>> A second group of anti-materialists peaked with the writings of C.S. Lewis
>> against materialism.  These persons tend to be motivated by faith
>> considerations believing that money is a spiritual evil.  Wealth destroys
>> the soul.  They have threads permeating radical religious groups in the US
>> and British protestant movements.  Often these groups conflate anti-semitism
>> and anti-materialism.  The average devotee is the working poor with a strong
>> theological upbringing or those who fill jobs such as military roles,
>> teachers or small civil service posts where pay is low and discipline is
>> strong.  Their futurist component is millenialist.  They often speak of
>> divine judgment and hope for their justice to be delivered by spirit-world
>> interventions.  This group is now centered in Latin American and radical
>> protestant groups and sects.  Without the otherwise essential religious
>> thread, members of participating movements tend toward nationalist
>> socialism/fascism as in Venezuela.
>>
>> A third group was the classical technocrats.  These were disaffected
>> engineers, architects and planners who foresaw the problems of maintaining
>> continuous consumption societies.  They tended to want to arrange the world
>> based on energy use and accounting which tied closely to the growing
>> awareness of physics theories in related areas from the 1880s-1930s.  Their
>> futurist component is a strong thread in the transhumanist discourse.  The
>> typical devotee is a technophile idealist who has tough encounters with
>> conventional modes of power and economic control.  These conflicts lead to
>> inflated views of technical possibilities that are usually Utopian, absurd
>> and ego-building for those who are able to conceive grand visions--the
>> rightful heirs of social control.  This group now fills subaltern positions
>> in universities and are leaders in social networking technologies, tending
>> to be early adaptors, idealistic visionaries and the like.  Their geographic
>> center is in Scandanavia, California, and, to some extent, Japan.  The
>> modern national manifestation is something like Holland or perhaps Finland.
>>
>> My own view is that only this third group has legitimate linkages to the
>> current P2P movement.  The second makes no effort or has no interest in
>> worldly sharing models outside of the Church.  They tend to align with the
>> right politically.  The first group is jumping on to the P2P movement so as
>> to advance their own often stifled idealism.  They tend to hope for radical
>> catalysts to realize a future they expect to emerge regardless of any
>> evidence to the contrary.  In a sense, they are millenialist as well, but
>> they tend to have limited or no spiritual focus.  Their end times results in
>> some Utopian socialist vision of paradise on earth.
>>
>> My guess is that the interaction of these groups will continue to prove
>> mutually destructive.  The third will maintain leadership and action roles
>> because of their technical interests and skills.  The second will continue
>> to reject earthly models.  The first will alienate others by their constant
>> focus on theory with little commitment to empirical action or results.
>>
>> The end product will be a slowly growing P2P movement periodically
>> revitalized by neo-technocrats fixated on future issues and their seeming
>> powerlessness to respond to unresponsive power structures.  Ironically, this
>> mentality is extremely close to the techno-entrepreneur movement of the
>> 1980s and beyond.  The difference is that the neo-technocrats tend to be
>> anti-materialistic.  One will continue to see cross-overs between the
>> neo-technocrats and the techno-entrepreneurs in the areas of social
>> entrepreneurism.  Again, both the millenial heirs of C.S. Lewis and the
>> Utopian socialists will be at the fringes of these projects.
>>
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090621/08207cff/attachment.html>